"... on one of the golden worlds our long-range sensors have identified in Andromeda's Helius cluste

I have a couple of thoughts which I'm hoping you might either be able to shoot down or perhaps expand on in the unlikely event they're actually possible.


1) The other races have had access to the Crucible for sufficient enough time and research to figure out it could be used to transport ships and cargo across what could be galactic distances.
Their main problem is that whoever built the Crucible apparently made use of it to send probes into neighbouring galaxies which is how and why they have detected possible "golden" worlds in the Helios Cluster.
However they haven't figured out how the builders of the Crucible achieved this so have to send the equivalent of a Crucible to the Helios Cluster with a number of backups in case not all of them make it to establish a link between the Nexus to the Crucible in our galaxy.

Please note they have no idea how long this might take nor of any events that happen after they leave.
It still doesn't explain their means of reaching the Andromeda Galaxy nor how they intend to re-establish contact so does this sound plausible to you?

2) They actually used the Crucible to transport and build the Arks on the edge of our galaxy using recovering Mass Effect Relays to supercharge the Arks for their eventual trip although they've been told the trip may take 600 years the actual time length is dependent on how effective their super charge is at transporting them across to the Galaxy and the possibility they may pass too close to rogue planets or other obstacles between them and their destination.

3) Given the nature of the expedition it would be likely the other races have been planning this trip for a very long time with humanity being the latest addition the question is how ready was the Hyperion for the trip maybe the problems is due to it being rushed into production rather than actual sabotage?
Either way the ship would need a crew to remain awake to insure the Ark reaches its destination perhaps a few are awakened knowing their place is to insure the Ark doesn't fall prey to any obstacle or system failure?

How likely are any of these?

I wouldn't count on any connection between the Crucible and the Ai. The Crucible seemed to have been discovered just as the Reapers arrived. By then, the Nexus and Arks were already on their way to Andromeda.

Also, the Crucible is one of the more disliked parts of the original trilogy. I don't think they'd be eager to revisit it in any way in this new game.

You're thinking of the Citadel, then. Crucible is the space magic dispenser at the end of me3.

My eye and mouth twitched when I heard the phrase is the briefing vid but...Trying to hope that tge lore will remain intact and things will make much sense is a lot to ask. I will try to enjoy the game as much as I can by mastering the art of breathing to relax. Whenever I see or read a lore breaking thing I ll pause the game, just take a deeeeeeep breath close my eyes,re open them and continue the game

Commenting the parts in bold:

1) Plenty of worlds could be visited, since the first Enterprise doesn't travel across the entire galaxy.  Most of the exploration done by Kirk and his crew is restricted to the Alpha Sector.
In Star Trek, the Milky Way is divided in several sectors. TOS and TNG explore the Alpha sector, with TNG exploring the J sector after the Q entity throws the ship into the farthest corners of the galaxy. That's the episode where Picard first meets the Borg. 

2) The show created several concepts of space flight from existing theories about space travel, such as the Warp velocity. Therefore, to enable quick travel from one star system to another, Star Trek departs from the premise that a ship can cross deep space and travel between star systems in a matter of days or weeks by using Warp speed. What is warp speed, we can only speculate, though the show provides a vague definition, but doesn't delve into detailed explanation as to how it actually works or how it affects space.

You may disagree with the producers of the show and consider Warp speed isn't an efficient means of space travel. But even without it, another concept would simply be created to replace it. Otherwise, producing a TV series centered around the exploration of the galaxy wouldn't be viable.

If you don't accept that premise, then you'll have the same kind of disappontment with any scifi show you watch. After all, the rules in any scifi universe are based on extrapolation of scientific theory to create a body of natural laws that enables a kind of science that still hasn't been invented (or is currently under development) to fully work in a fictional scenario.


To sum it up: in science fiction, there's no such thing as having every concept work just as it should, according to scientific theory, simply because such theories don't even work in real life yet. And they shouldn't, since they are trying to predict phenomena that will happen IN THE FUTURE. So such theories are naturally incomplete and experimentation is incipient. Scifi is mostly speculation and extrapolation, not a documentary on real life futuristic science.

In other words, either you accept the pseudo-scientific babble a scifi show provides about the science being used and believe in it for the sake of enjoying the story or you don't watch scifi and spare yourself having to see the occasional space magic in action.


I have to point out I'm stating the obvious here. Anyone who's aware of the premises behind creating scifi knows this. But since you've made that in depth analysis about the science in Star Trek "not working", I felt it was necessary to repeat the obvious.


Also, I couldn't help but notice your tone was rather hostile, something which baffled me, since we've never spoken before. I don't even know you, neither personally, nor online. And yet you're being cynical and dismissive toward another person's argument for no reason. I don't know about you, but I usually don't talk to people like that, especially not strangers. 

Maybe it's because of stuff like that being considered common for some people that Bioware decided to shut down the old forum.

If they mean telescopes they should call them telescopes. Calling them sensors unnecessarily confuses them with the RADAR/LADAR sensor technology used in Mass Effect spaceships to detect objects in space.

ITT: people that don't know anything about how physics or telescopes works.

Arcian, you're reaching for this one.

I'd care what you think, but, unlike you, my head's not shoved firmly up my own ass.

The problem with BioWare's wording is that they've traditionally used the word sensor to describe scanning technology that uses light or radar waves to ping objects and detect their positioning. That takes twice as long as telescopic observation, which is the point I made in the OP. It also has the added problem of the inverse square law, which means the strength of a signal or wave is inversely proportional to the distance it has travelled. So not even gamma ray burst-strength RADAR/LADAR would be sufficient to map planets in a galaxy 2.5 million light years away.

The sensors being telescopes would make a whole lot more sense, even though image resolution and image fidelity is never going to be high enough to detect life on another planet, whether it is 4 light years away or 2.5 million light years away. It makes infinitely more sense to send unmanned FTL probes to look for life in another galaxy, but that would take 1200 years - and FTL journeys to other galaxies are still impossible by the technological standards set by the original trilogy.

The only references to telescopes in the original trilogy are:

- Sniper rifle telescopes.
- Radar telescope antennae.
- The space telescope the raloi used to detect the asari ship passing through their system.
- Low-power ground-based telescopes on Irune and Altakiril.
- Two halves of a turian telescope array on the planets Gromar and Eletania, linked together through FTL buoys over a distance of a few thousands of light years. This telescope array was used to map the Terminus Systems with great accuracy.

The last one would be a pertinent reference to use in ME:A, assuming they meant long-range telescopes. However, they would still need to explain how they are able to detect life on planets in another galaxy. All we can do right now with spectography is to conclude that a planet has the basic elements necessary for life - that is by no means a guarantee that the planet hosts or can host life.

ME:A doesn't seem to take a conservative approach to this problem, as the majority of the planets depicted in marketing material have been lifebearing. It would seem to me that the search for a human homeworld in Andromeda isn't so much going to be to find a planet that is tolerable for human habitation, but to find a planet that is basically Earth 2.0.

Of course there are issues with the original trilogy, the problem is that they're creating more issues as they go along without fixing any of the old ones.

So picture this.

The Arks leave for Andromeda. Firstly they've got to leave the Milky way, This would take them a fair while, then they proceed onto Andromeda. This would take a very very very long time even at the speed of light. Through Dark Space. Which is full of Reapers.

Detecting habitable planets in another galaxy? Forget it. It is impossible.

Maybe finding golden planets is a bit like going down the shop for a newspaper by the time MEA takes place? I must admit tho, I like the idea that someone would feel the need to get 2,500,000 light years away from ME3s ending